World

Can Putin, under sanctions and an arrest warrant, enter the EU?

Published

4 months ago

October 20, 2025

Can Putin, under sanctions and an arrest warrant, enter the EU?

Vladimir Putin is coming to Budapest. At least, that is what the invitation says.

After a lengthy phone call with Donald Trump on Thursday, the leaders of the United States and Russia tentatively agreed to meet in the EU and NATO capital sometime in the near future to discuss a possible end to the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Whether that tête-à-tête happens is still unclear, but the news itself sent shockwaves across capitals, as the trip could mark Putin’s first intrusion into the European Union’s territory since early 2020 and further undercut the Western effort to isolate him.

But beyond the geopolitics driving the initiative, and the complex logistics that go into setting up a summit of this magnitude and consequence, one basic question emerges: Can Putin actually enter the European Union?

There are at least two different dimensions to consider.

The EU sanctions

Immediately after Russian troops broke through Ukraine’s borders and marched to Kyiv, the EU rushed to apply a variety of sanctions to weaken the Kremlin’s war machine.

Among the plethora of decisions, member states sanctioned hundreds of high-level Russian officials responsible for planning and overseeing the invasion. The blacklist entailed a prohibition on travel to the bloc and the freezing of personal assets.

Putin and his foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, were also targeted, but with a caveat: only their assets were frozen, a symbolic measure given the obscurity around Putin’s wealth. A travel ban was not introduced to maintain a minimum of diplomatic contacts.

According to then-High Representative Josep Borrell, Putin was the third world leader to be personally sanctioned by the bloc, following Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko and then-Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

This means that, on that front, Putin would be allowed to land in Hungary.

However, there is an additional obstacle: the EU has effectively closed its airspace to Russian planes as part of its sweeping sanctions regime.

According to the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), the flight prohibition applies to aircraft operated by a Russian air carrier, registered in Russia and owned or chartered by any Russian person or entity, as well as to “non-scheduled” flights that can transport Russian citizens to business meetings or holiday destinations in the EU.

There are several exceptions to the rules, such as emergency landings or humanitarian purposes. Additionally, member states may grant case-by-case derogations.

Last year, Sergei Lavrov travelled to Malta for a meeting of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) that proved highly controversial. The minister was forced to undertake a seven-hour detour to avoid European airspace until he arrived on the island, which permitted him to land due to diplomatic reasons.

By contrast, his spokesperson, Maria Zakharova, who is under a travel ban and an asset freeze, was denied an exemption after several capitals raised objections.

Putin could have two options: either he embarks on a long-winded detour to enter Hungary through the EU candidates in the Western Balkans, or he secures derogations from the EU members along the shorter route: Poland, which could prove tricky, and Slovakia, which would likely be easy.

Another option could entail flying through the Black Sea and Romania, a staunch ally of Kyiv that hosts a multinational NATO contingent.

The European Commission, which oversees the implementation of sanctions, has welcomed “any steps that lead to a just and lasting peace for Ukraine” while refraining from committing to facilitating the prospective summit.

It remains to be seen what levers Trump will exert to ensure the meeting goes ahead and whether this aspect had already been settled when the Budapest option was discussed between the American and Russian presidents.

Putin stepping on European soil again will, by itself, score a victory for the Russian leader after years of isolation and mark a daunting moment for the bloc as its leaders watch on as the Russian and American presidents meet in an EU member that has consistently tried to derail collective support for Ukraine.

But refusing Putin’s travel to Budapest risks being exploited by the Kremlin to underline its narrative that it is the EU itself that seeks confrontation with Russia instead of peace. Kyiv’s position on the summit may help influence the resolution of this controversy.

The ICC arrest warrant

Besides EU sanctions, which are directly enforceable, Putin is under an arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court (ICC), based in The Hague.

Putin and Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova, Children’s Rights Commissioner, are accused of being responsible for the deportation and transfer of tens of thousands of Ukrainian children from occupied areas to Russia, which constitutes a war crime.

Neither Russia nor the US is a party to the ICC and therefore does not recognise its jurisdiction. (The Kremlin has issued a warrant for the court’s general prosecutor.)

Meanwhile, all EU countries have signed up to the Rome Statute and are, by default, expected to aid in its global fight against impunity.

Earlier this year, Hungary became the first member of the bloc to announce its intention to withdraw from the court in response to the arrest warrant placed on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which Hungary, like the US, had contested.

The decision was made public shortly after Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán received Netanyahu in Budapest and openly flouted the obligation to detain him.

But Hungary’s withdrawal will not take effect until June 2026, one year after it filed the notification. In the interim period, the country remains bound by the tribunal.

“A withdrawal does not impact ongoing proceedings or any matter which was already under consideration by the Court prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective,” an ICC spokesperson told Euronews.

“When states have concerns in cooperating with the Court, they may consult the Court in a timely and efficient manner. However, it is not for states to unilaterally determine the soundness of the Court’s legal decisions.”

Critically, the ICC lacks the means to enforce its warrants: it relies exclusively on the goodwill of individual governments. Last year, Mongolia, a party to the ICC, faced European recriminations after it hosted Putin for a state visit without any consequences.

A similar scenario unfolded when Orbán welcomed Netanyahu in April.

“If Putin lands (in Budapest), the arrest should be the logical consequence,” said a senior EU diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“Nobody will be surprised if the Hungarians don’t arrest Putin. It’s not the first time that Hungary violates its (ICC) obligations. So yes, it’s problematic.”

The ICC often runs into the obstacle of diplomatic immunity.

On the one hand, Article 27 of the Rome Statute says the rules apply to all persons “without any distinction based on official capacity”, including heads of state and government. On the other hand, Article 98 says that countries “may not proceed” with a warrant if it breaches their obligation to respect the immunity of a non-party state.

“If a country’s domestic laws say that they cannot arrest a head of state, that a head of state has immunity, then arguably that applies,” Mahmoud Abuwasel, Vice-President of the Hague Institute for International Justice, told Euronews in April.

“However, it’s not up to that particular state to make that determination on its own. It has to consult with the ICC (and) the ICC may find that immunity does not apply for whatever reason.”

France, while defending the tribunal, said it cannot arrest Netanyahu because Israel has never signed up to the Rome Statute. Hungary could now invoke a similar argument. In fact, the country has already promised safe passage for Putin.

Click to comment

World

Trump says he is directing federal agencies to cease use of Anthropic technology

Published

3 hours ago

February 27, 2026

Press Room

Trump says he is directing federal agencies to cease use of Anthropic technology

U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday said he was directing every federal agency to immediately cease all use of Anthropic’s technology, adding there would be a six-month phase out for agencies such as the Defense Department who use the company’s products.

World

UN Human Rights Council chief cuts off speaker criticizing US-sanctioned official

Published

4 hours ago

February 27, 2026

Press Room

UN Human Rights Council chief cuts off speaker criticizing US-sanctioned official

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) abruptly cut off a video statement after the speaker began criticizing several United Nations officials, including one who has been sanctioned by the Trump administration. The video message was being played during a U.N. session in Geneva, Switzerland, Friday morning.

Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the and president of Human Rights, called out several U.N. officials in her message, including U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk and special rapporteur Francesca Albanese, who is the subject of U.S. sanctions.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced sanctions against Albanese July 9, 2025, saying that she “has spewed unabashed antisemitism, expressed support for terrorism and open contempt for the United States, Israel and the West.”

“That bias has been apparent across the span of her career, including recommending that the ICC, without a legitimate basis, issue arrest warrants targeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant,” Rubio added.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Francesca Albanese (Getty Images)

“I was the only American U.N.-accredited NGO with a speaking slot, and I wasn’t allowed even to conclude my 90 seconds of allotted time. Free speech is non-existent at the U.N. so-called ‘Human Rights Council,’” Bayefsky told Fox News Digital.

Bayefsky noted the irony of the council cutting off her video in a proceeding that was said to be an “interactive dialogue,” an event during which experts are allowed to speak to the council about human rights issues.

“I was cut off after naming Francesca Albanese, Navi Pillay and Chris Sidoti for covering up Palestinian use of rape as a weapon of war and trafficking in blatant antisemitism. I named the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan, who is facing disturbing sexual assault allegations but still unaccountable almost two years later. Those are the people and the facts that the United Nations wants to protect and hide,” Bayefsky told Fox News Digital.

“It is an outrage that I am silenced and singled out for criticism on the basis of naming names.”

Bayefsky’s statement was cut off as she accused Albanese and Navi Pillay, the former chair of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory; and Chris Sidoti, a commissioner of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory. She also slammed Khan, who has faced rape allegations. Khan has denied the sexual misconduct allegations against him.

Had her video message been played in full, Bayefsky would have gone on to criticize Türk’s recent report for not demanding accountability for the “Palestinian policy to pay to kill Jews, including Hamas terror boss Yahya Sinwar who got half a million dollars in blood money.”

When the video was cut short, Human Rights Council President Ambassador Sidharto Reza Suryodipuro characterized Bayefsky’s remarks as “derogatory, insulting and inflammatory” and said that they were “not acceptable.”

“The language used by the speaker cannot be allowed as it has exceeded the limits of tolerance and respect within the framework of the council which we all in this room hold to,” Suryodipuro said.

The Human Rights Council at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, Feb. 26, 2025. (Denis Balibouse/Reuters)

MELANIA TRUMP TO TAKE THE GAVEL AT UN SECURITY COUNCIL IN HISTORIC FIRST

In response to Fox News Digital’s request for comment, Human Rights Council Media Officer Pascal Sim said the council has had long-established rules on what it considers to be acceptable language.

“Rulings regarding the form and language of interventions in the Human Rights Council are established practices that have been in place throughout the existence of the council and used by all council presidents when it comes to ensuring respect, tolerance and dignity inherent to the discussion of human rights issues,” Sim told Fox News Digital.

When asked if the video had been reviewed ahead of time, Sim said it was assessed for length and audio quality to allow for interpretation, but that the speakers are ultimately “responsible for the content of their statement.”

“The video statement by the NGO ‘Touro Law Center, The Institute on Human Rights and The Holocaust’ was interrupted when it was deemed that the language exceeded the limits of tolerance and respect within the framework of the council and could not be tolerated,” Sim said.

“As the presiding officer explained at the time, all speakers are to remain within the appropriate framework and terminology used in the council’s work, which is well known by speakers who routinely participate in council proceedings. Following that ruling, none of the member states of the council have objected to it.”

Flag alley at the United Nations’ European headquarters during the Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland, Sept. 11, 2023. (Denis Balibouse/File Photo/Reuters)

UNRWA OFFICIALS LOBBY CONGRESSIONAL STAFFERS AGAINST TRUMP TERRORIST DESIGNATION THREAT

While Bayefsky’s statement was cut off, other statements accusing Israel of genocide and ethnic cleansing were allowed to be played and read in full.

This is not the first time that Bayefsky was interrupted. Exactly one year ago, on Feb. 27, 2025, her video was cut off when she mentioned the fate of Ariel and Kfir Bibas. Jürg Lauber, president of the U.N. Human Rights Council at the time, stopped the video and declared that Bayefsky had used inappropriate language.

Bayefsky began the speech by saying, “The world now knows Palestinian savages murdered 9-month-old baby Kfir,” and she ws almost immediately cut off by Lauber.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Sorry, I have to interrupt,” Lauber abruptly said as the video of Bayefsky was paused. Lauber briefly objected to the “language” used in the video, but then allowed it to continue. After a few more seconds, the video was shut off entirely.

Lauber reiterated that “the language that’s used by the speaker cannot be tolerated,” adding that it “exceeds clearly the limits of tolerance and respect.”

Last year, when the previous incident occurred, Bayefsky said she believed the whole thing was “stage-managed,” as the council had advanced access to her video and a transcript and knew what she would say.

Rachel Wolf is a breaking news writer for Fox News Digital and FOX Business.

World

Did the EU bypass Hungary’s veto on Ukraine’s €90 billion loan?

Published

5 hours ago

February 27, 2026

Press Room

Did the EU bypass Hungary’s veto on Ukraine’s €90 billion loan?

A post on X by European Parliament President Roberta Metsola has triggered a wave of misinformation linked to the EU’s €90 billion support loan to Ukraine, which is designed to help Kyiv meet its general budget and defence needs amid Russia’s ongoing invasion.

Hungary said earlier this week that it would block both the loan — agreed by EU leaders in December — and a new EU sanctions package against Moscow amid a dispute over oil supplies.

Shortly afterwards, Metsola posted on X that she had signed the Ukraine support loan on behalf of the parliament.

She said the funds would be used to maintain essential public services, support Ukraine’s defence, protect shared European security, and anchor Ukraine’s future within Europe.

The announcement triggered a wave of reactions online, with some claiming Hungary’s veto had been ignored, but this is incorrect.

Metsola did sign the loan on behalf of the European Parliament, but that’s only one step in the EU’s legislative process. Her signature does not mean the loan has been definitively implemented.

How the process works

In December, after failing to reach an agreement on using frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s war effort, the European Council agreed in principle to provide €90 billion to help Kyiv meet its budgetary and military needs over the next two years.

On 14 January, the European Commission put forward a package of legislative proposals to ensure continued financial support for Ukraine in 2026 and 2027.

These included a proposal to establish a €90 billion Ukraine support loan, amendments to the Ukraine Facility — the EU instrument used to deliver budgetary assistance — and changes to the EU’s multiannual financial framework so the loan could be backed by any unused budgetary “headroom”.

Under EU law, these proposals must be adopted by both the European Parliament and the European Council. Because the loan requires amendments to EU budgetary rules, it ultimately needs unanimous approval from all member states.

Metsola’s signature therefore does not amount to a final decision, nor does it override Hungary’s veto.

The oil dispute behind Hungary’s opposition

Budapest says its objections are linked to a dispute over the Druzhba pipeline, a Soviet-era route that carries Russian oil via Ukraine to Hungary and Slovakia.

According to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), Hungary and Slovakia imported an estimated €137 million worth of Russian crude through the pipeline in January alone, under a temporary EU exemption.

Oil flows reportedly stopped in late January after a Russian air strike that Kyiv says damaged the pipeline’s southern branch in western Ukraine. Hungary disputes this, with Prime Minister Viktor Orbán accusing Ukraine of blocking it from being used.

Speaking in Kyiv alongside European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the pipeline had been damaged by Russia, not Kyiv.

He added that repairs were dangerous and could not be carried out quickly without putting Ukrainian servicemen in danger.

Tensions escalated further after reports that Ukraine struck a Russian pumping station serving the pipeline. Orbán responded by ordering increased security at critical infrastructure sites, claiming Kyiv was attempting to disrupt Hungary’s energy system.